Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262400AbTEVAA5 (ORCPT ); Wed, 21 May 2003 20:00:57 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262402AbTEVAA5 (ORCPT ); Wed, 21 May 2003 20:00:57 -0400 Received: from parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk ([195.92.249.252]:45770 "EHLO www.linux.org.uk") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262400AbTEVAA4 (ORCPT ); Wed, 21 May 2003 20:00:56 -0400 Date: Thu, 22 May 2003 01:13:58 +0100 From: viro@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk To: Robert White Cc: root@chaos.analogic.com, Helge Hafting , Linux kernel Subject: Re: recursive spinlocks. Shoot. Message-ID: <20030522001358.GB14406@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 991 Lines: 20 On Wed, May 21, 2003 at 02:56:12PM -0700, Robert White wrote: > Lets say I have a file system with a perfectly implemented unlink and a > perfectly implemented rename. Both of these routines need to exist exactly > as they are. Both of these routines need to lock the vfs dentry subsystem > (look it up.) _Do_ look it up. Neither ->unlink() nor ->rename() need to do anything with any sort of dentry locking or modifications. Illustrates the point rather nicely, doesn't it? What was that about taking locks out of laziness and ignorance, again? 2%? You really like to feel yourself a member of select group... Unfortunately, that group is nowhere near that select - look up the Sturgeon's Law somewhere. 90% of anything and all such... - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/